ITC to investigate Apple's patent case against Motorola

The U.S. International Trade Commission formally announced Tuesday that it is launching an investigation into Motorola smartphones in response to Apple's allegations that Motorola violated several multi-touch related patents.

Bloomberg was first to report the news of an official ITC investigation, which was posted to the ITC website Tuesday.

Motorola and Apple are currently embroiled in a set of lawsuits, each alleging that the other company has violated a number of smartphone patents. Motorola sued first in early October, claiming that Apple is in violation of 18 Motorola patents and had "refused" to license Motorola's technology.

In anticipation of a countersuit, Motorola then sought to invalidate 11 of Apple's patents related to the iPhone as a preemptive strike against the Cupertino, Calif., company. On Oct. 29, Apple fired back with a countersuit accusing Motorola of violating six multi-touch patents.

If the ITC rules in favor of Apple, it could block the importation and sale of Motorola smartphones in the U.S. According to the report, the new case is listed as "In the Matter of Mobile Devices and Related Software, 337-750, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington)."

Earlier this month, ITC staff sided with Nokia in a patent case between Nokia and Apple. Apple had accused Nokia of infringing on 13 patents, but ITC staff said in a pre-hearing memo that Apple had failed to provide enough evidence of a patent violation on several of the patents. The ITC has opened investigations into complaints made by Apple and Nokia over alleged patent violations.

Apple also sued handset maker HTC earlier this year.

More recently, a new lawsuit filed last week by St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants alleges Apple violated patents it owns regarding power maintenance and processors.

When SJ first showed the iPhone there was absolutely nothing like it out there ... not even close. Android was to be a better BB, there was nothing close to iPhone in Google's plans.

SJ stated Apple had patented it up to the eyeballs (I paraphrase). I have been waiting ever since to see that proven. So far everyone and his dog has ripped off every iPhone concept. At some point I'd like to see those patents start to work and work really well.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

My great, great, great grand-father has a patent on the barrel. I'm going to pursue that.

I would really love to know how this 'state of the art' tech is decided in court....

I hear you but ... if he had a patent on the barrel (and I understand we are speaking metaphorically here) you would no doubt be a champion of patents and probably very wealthy. Perspective is a truly wonderful thing in understanding humans.

Here is my '2 cents worth'. A patent on a concept, that is actually put into production or at least developed to a working model (often at great expense), should be protected. It is one of the corner stones of a healthy society. Anything else is simply a form of anarchy. That isn't to say patent sitters that simply patent anything they think might one day come to pass should IMHO be given a period of grace and if they do nothing- lose it.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Any thoughts on how to fix this? Many suggest a 'loser pays' system here might help but how you protect the less well off is a problem.

To make my point, while in the UK some 30 years ago, I was sued by an ex accountant of mine that I had fired earlier who was then serving time for being a crooked accountant (they do get caught on occasions ). Under the system then (I have no idea if it is still the same) he got free legal aid as he was broke. His clever (but evil) solicitor simply used state funds to sue anyone this guy had ever done business with on all sorts of trumped up charges (this while he is still in Durham Jail!). Knowing if they lost the state paid... it was a no brainer.

Faced with bottomless pockets and knowing they would drag it out as long as possible and if I lost I paid both sides my solicitor told me to throw in the towel. So I had to give in and pay some £2000 fine for using his photocopier without permission or whatever the ridiculous charge was. It was an extremely frustrating experience.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

I hear you but ... if he had a patent on the barrel (and I understand we are speaking metaphorically here) you would no doubt be a champion of patents and probably very wealthy. Perspective is a truly wonderful thing in understanding humans.

Here is my '2 cents worth'. A patent on a concept, that is actually put into production or at least developed to a working model (often at great expense), should be protected. It is one of the corner stones of a healthy society. Anything else is simply a form of anarchy. That isn't to say patent sitters that simply patent anything they think might one day come to pass should IMHO be given a period of grace and if they do nothing- lose it.

Couldn't have said it better. The anarchy part as well. You would think that the US laws would be crafted with some form of sensibility in favor of the people who actually do the real work?

Just about anyone can drum up an idea, especially with respect to software, but not just anyone can really include a new concept into a working form factor!!! In retrospect, what was in production and on the market at the time the first iPhone was produced, I don't recall anything that compared in look or feature set and usability.

Today, if you look at all the smart phones out there and compare them all, they look like direct copies of the iPhone in size, shape, styling, feature set, button placement, GUI, screen type and size, you name it. But before the iPhone, there wasn't one phone that looked like any of these new sets. They all look like pirated iPhone wannabes.

When SJ first showed the iPhone there was absolutely nothing like it out there ... not even close. Android was to be a better BB, there was nothing close to iPhone in Google's plans.

SJ stated Apple had patented it up to the eyeballs (I paraphrase). I have been waiting ever since to see that proven. So far everyone and his dog has ripped off every iPhone concept. At some point I'd like to see those patents start to work and work really well.

Yeah, but Apple and the rest of the world is about to find out whether or not pinch to zoom, slide to unlock and swipe up and down but not around is patentable.

Any thoughts on how to fix this? Many suggest a 'loser pays' system here might help but how you protect the less well off is a problem.

To make my point, while in the UK some 30 years ago, I was sued by an ex accountant of mine that I had fired earlier who was then serving time for being a crooked accountant (they do get caught on occasions ). Under the system then (I have no idea if it is still the same) he got free legal aid as he was broke. His clever (but evil) solicitor simply used state funds to sue anyone this guy had ever done business with on all sorts of trumped up charges (this while he is still in Durham Jail!). Knowing if they lost the state paid... it was a no brainer.

Faced with bottomless pockets and knowing they would drag it out as long as possible and if I lost I paid both sides my solicitor told me to throw in the towel. So I had to give in and pay some £2000 fine for using his photocopier without permission or whatever the ridiculous charge was. It was an extremely frustrating experience.

I think you answered your own question about why the 'loser pays' system is also not the magic bullet.

It's a tradeoff between encouraging wasteful lawsuits (US system) versus discouraging lawsuits that should go forward (the loser-pays system, as in the UK).